Saturday, December 31, 2011

The bugs that ate Monsanto

The corn rootworm.Photo: Jimmy SmithNow that 94 percent of the soy and 70 percent of the corn grown in the U.S. are genetically modified, Monsanto -- one of the companies that dominates the GMO seed market -- might look to some like it's winning. But if we look a little closer, I'd say they're holding on by a thread.
Their current success is due in large part to brilliant marketing. The company's approach was both compelling -- their products were sold as the key to making large-scale farming far simpler and more predictable -- and aggressive: Monsanto made it virtually impossible for most farmers to find conventional seeds for sale in most parts of the country.
Despite promises of improved productivity, enhanced nutritional content, or extreme weather tolerance -- none of which has ever come to market -- Monsanto has only ever produced seeds with two genetically modified traits: either herbicide tolerance or pesticide production. And even those traits never lived up to the marketing hype.
But it now appears that the core traits themselves are failing. Over the last several years, so-called "superweeds" have grown resistant to the herbicide RoundUp, the companion product that's made Monsanto's herbicide-tolerant (aka RoundUp-Ready) corn, soy, and alfalfa so popular. Those crops were supposed to be the only plants that could withstand being sprayed by the chemical. Oops.
The superweed problem is so bad that farmers in some parts of the country are abandoning thousands of acres because the weeds are so out of control, or dousing the crops with ever more toxic (and expensive) combinations of other herbicides. Thankfully, it's an issue that's getting more and more media attention.
And now Monsanto's other flagship product line, the pesticide-producing "Bt crops," named for the pesticide they are genetically modified to emit, is in trouble.
Scientists have warned that insects would become resistant from the overuse of Bt crops, but Monsanto poo-pooed it. Even so, when the EPA first considered Bt crops for approval, agency scientists wanted a 50-percent buffer to prevent resistance (only half the acreage in any given field could be planted with Bt crops). Of course, if that demand stood, there is no way that Monsanto would ever have achieved their current market dominance.
Monsanto was so convinced (publicly at least) of their products' immunity from, well, an immunity problem, that they pushed back hard and got the buffer zone reduced to 20 percent. The idea with a larger buffer was that any resistant bugs that arose would breed with the bugs feeding on the non-Bt crops nearby, and ecological balance would be preserved. So, by requiring a small buffer, EPA higher-ups were echoing Monsanto's party line: Resistance isn't a risk.
Sadly, even that 20-percent rule has been ignored by many farmers, with no fear of retribution from Monsanto for violating safety protocols, of course. After all, the smaller the buffer, the more of their profit-earning GMO seeds farmers were planting.
Yet it's possible that the EPA is starting to push back against Monsanto's handling of its Bt crops a little. In a new report [PDF] -- unpublicized and buried deep in a government website -- and analyzed in detail over at Mother Jones, the EPA confirms many anti-GMO activists' deepest fears. The report "officially" found evidence that corn rootworms, a major pest for corngrowers, have grown resistant to Bt in several states; even worse, that resistance is strong enough that EPA scientists are insisting the company implement a "remedial action plan." In addition, the report criticizes Monsanto for missing the rise of the rootworm resistance problem via its faulty monitoring system.
However, Tom Philpott at Mother Jones picks out the report's key eyebrow-raiser:

Perhaps most devastatingly of all, EPA reveals that Monsanto has been receiving reports of possible resistance since 2004 -- the year after the product's release -- when it got 21 such complaints nationwide. The number of reports ballooned to 94 in 2006 and has been hovering at around 100 per year since. And guess what? "Monsanto reported that none of their follow-up investigations resulted ... in finding resistant populations [of rootworms]."

Naturally, Monsanto continues to deny the problem. In a recent blog post on its website responding to the EPA report, Monsanto again rewrote reality, claiming: "Scientific confirmation of corn rootworm resistance ... has not been demonstrated."
Of course, this peer-reviewed study, which provided just such confirmation, doesn't count because ... because Monsanto said so. So there.
Monsanto's denial of reality in favor of its bottom line, while a practice now commonplace in corporate America, will have repercussions beyond industrial agriculture. Bt is also a key pesticide for organic agriculture; if resistance spreads, it's possible that Bt will lose its effectiveness for organic farmers as well. We're still far from that, thankfully.
Interestingly, this story has mainly been picked up by the business press concerned with the effect of this latest development on Monsanto's stock price. Perhaps we should take the warning of stock traders as a good indicator that Monsanto may really be in trouble.
There is an obvious immediate solution here: Require farmers to plant larger buffers. It's not at all clear that the EPA is prepared to go beyond posting a critical report on an obscure government website -- but if they were, it would have the immediate effect of reducing the amount of Bt corn and soy farmers are growing. And that wouldn't just be good for the bugs.

A 17-year veteran of both traditional and online media, Tom is a founder and Executive Director of the Food & Environment Reporting Network and a Contributing Writer at Grist covering food and agricultural policy. Tom's long and winding road to food politics writing passed through New York, Boston, the San Francisco Bay Area, Florence, Italy and Philadelphia (which has a vibrant progressive food politics and sustainable agriculture scene, thank you very much). In addition to Grist, his writing has appeared online in the American Prospect, Slate, the New York Times and The New Republic. He is on record as believing that wrecking the planet is a bad idea.

Friday, December 30, 2011

Anthony Gucciardi
NaturalSociety
January 6, 2011In an interview with the magazine L’Osservatore Romano on January 5, a prominent member of the Vatican spoke out against genetically modified crops. Cardinal Peter Turkson said that genetically modified crops are a “new form of slavery,” and went on to discuss the impact that they have on both the environment and the economy. Regardless of religious association, anyone speaking out against genetically modified should be listened to. As a prominent leader of the Catholic people, Cardinal Turkson has the ability to inform millions worldwide regarding the negative effects of genetically modified food.

Even farmers have risen up against Monsanto and genetically modified seeds, with Monsanto forcing thousands of farmers into debt worldwide. In India, Monsanto has ruined the lives of so many farmers that the prevalence of their suicide has led to a large farming area to be titled the ‘suicide belt of India’. Some have even blamed Monsanto for the recent bird and fish deaths, claiming that the poison coming from their factories may have poisoned animals worldwide. Monsanto’s destruction isn’t limited to the environment, however.

Genetically modified foods have been proven not only to be a threat to nature, but extremely harmful to humans. The process of bioengineering GM ingredients itself is quite ridiculous. Billions are spent each year to genetically modify the food supply, tainting it with genetically modified frankenfood. Genetically modifying foods requires one to tamper with the very genetic coding of the crop and/or seed. The process entails the transfer of genes from one organism to another, such as taking particular genes from a pig and transferring them to a tomato. Not only does this defile nature, but it leads to a host of health problems.

Due to the complexity of a living organism’s genetic structure, it is impossible to track the long-term results of consuming genetically modified food. Introducing new genes into even the most simple bacterium may cause an array of issues, highlighting the complexity of even the simplest organisms. Introducing new genes to highly complex organisms such as animals or crops is even riskier.

When introducing the gene to its new host, it is essentially impossible to predict the reaction. The genetic intelligence of the host could be disrupted with the introduction of the new gene, creating an adverse reaction. There is truly no way of knowing the long-term effect genetically modified food, as there are too many variables. There is simply no room for science when Monsanto is involved.

Monsanto has inexorably pushed for wides-cale dominance of the world’s food supply by buying out competition and using FDA regulations to get around accurate labeling. In fact, labeling has protected Monsanto from excessive criticism for quite some time. Under the ludicrous labeling guidelines, food products in the United States do not even have to openly state that they contain genetically modified ingredients. While countries like Australia require products to labeled genetically modified if they contain an ingredient that is more than 1% genetically modified, the United States goes by no such precautionary code.

Besides Monsanto’s crusade to alter the very genetic coding of the food, they have been charged with discharging toxic waste that included PCBs into a west Anniston creek, and dumping millions of pounds of PCBs into open-pit landfills. The people in that area had no idea, and continued to swim and play in the creek. PCBs have been classified as a persistent organic pollutant, meaning they are resistant to environmental degradation. While they heavily pollute the environment, PCBs are also extremely toxic. PCB production was banned in 1976 by the U.S. Congress, and ultimately by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants in 2001.

A study published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences also helped to end the debate regarding the health effects of genetically modified food (GMO). The study shows that three Monsanto corn varieties cause a direct health hazard, with the study picking up mainstream attention.

There is a world-wide debate concerning the safety and regulatory approval process of genetically modified (GM) crops and foods. In order to scientifically address this issue, it is necessary to have access to toxicological tests, preferably on mammals, performed over the longest time-scales involving detailed blood and organ system analyses. Furthermore, these tests should, if possible, be in accordance with OECD guidelines. states the introduction.

For the first time in the world, we’ve proven that GMO are neither sufficiently healthy nor proper to be commercialized. [...] Each time, for all three GMOs, the kidneys and liver, which are the main organs that react to a chemical food poisoning, had problems, indicated Gilles-Eric Seralini, an expert member of the Commission for Biotechnology Reevaluation, created by the EU in 2008.

Study: Common Herbicide Causes Menstrual Trouble

Yet again, scientists have looked at populations routinely exposed to the widely used herbicide atrazine and found trouble.

The latest: In a study published by Envionmental Research (summarized here), researchers found evidence that atrazine could be causing menstrual irregularities and low estrogen levels in women, even when it appears in drinking water at levels far below the EPA's limit of 3 parts per billion.

The study showed that women in ag-intensive areas of Illinois, where atrazine has been shown to leach into drinking water from farm fields, were significantly more likely to experience menstrual irregularities and low estrogen levels than women in ag-intensive areas of Vermont, where atrazine use is much lower.

The Vermont/Illinois paper comes on the heels of an analysis of the Agricultural Health Study—an ongoing look at people who regularly apply pesticides and their spouses—that found similar trends among women exposed to atrazine, as well as a 2009 study finding that atrazine levels in drinking water tracked with low-weight birth incidences in Indiana.

Meanwhile, as I reported three weeks ago, an independent scientific panel convened by the EPA found "strong" evidence linking atrazine to thyroid cancer and "suggestive" evidence linking it to ovarian cancer, also based on studies of human populations exposed to the poison through drinking water. The panel declared that the EPA had been seriously underestimating the cancer risk posed by atrazine in drinking water.

Now, assessing the danger of a toxic chemical like atrazine, the second-most-used pesticide on US farm fields, is tricky. You can't ethically feed a suspected poison to people and see what happens.

You can use animals to gauge its effects, but it isn't perfectly clear how the results apply to humans. And you can find human populations known to be exposed to it and see if any health concerns turn up—a practice known as epidemiology, and exemplified by the studies I cite above. But here, too, results are uncertain, because real-world situations contain infinite variables that can't be controlled for.

But the absence of definitive proof that exposure to atrazine causes health trouble does not exonerate the lucrative agrichemical, as its maker, Syngenta, would have us believe. Until company execs volunteer to start quaffing the stuff and feeding it to their kids, animal studies and epidemiology are all we have. And for atrazine, both point to danger. (A recent University of California-Berkeley study found that low-level exposure to the chemical emasculates male frogs).

After the EPA publicized the findings of its cancer panel earlier this month, an agency spokesperson told me that the EPA would not even consider banning the chemical until 2013, at the earliest. That decision looks more dubious than ever as troubling new evidence emerges about Syngenta's blockbuster herbicide.

The FDA's Christmas Present for Factory Farms

On Dec. 22, while even the nerdiest observers were thinking more about Christmas plans than food-safety policy, the FDA snuck a holiday gift to the meat industry into the Federal Register. The agency announced it had essentially given up any pretense of regulating antibiotic abuse on factory farms, at least for the time being.

Wired's diligent Maryn McKenna has the background. She reports that way back in 1977—when livestock farming was much less industrialized than it is today—the FDA announced its intention to limit use of key antibiotics on animal farms. The reason: By that time, it was already obvious that routine use of these drugs would generate antibiotic-resistant pathogens that endanger humans.

In the decades since, the agency has ruminated and mulled, appointed committees and consulted experts, all the while delaying making a final decision on the matter. Meanwhile, the meat industry built a multibillion-dollar business based on stuffing animals by the thousands into tight spaces amid their own waste. To keep them alive and growing to slaughter amid such conditions, feedlot operators give their animals daily doses of antibiotics. The FDA recently revealed that factory animal farms now burn through fully 80 percent of all antibiotics consumed in the United States.

With the stealthy holiday surprise it dropped last week (full text here), the agency declared it would forgo actual regulatory action and instead "focus its efforts for now on the potential for voluntary reform and the promotion of the judicious use of antimicrobials in the interest of public health."

As McKenna demonstrates, the industry has shown no signs it will "volunteer" to cut back on antibiotics. She points to a recent missive from the National Cattleman's Association that blithely denies mounting evidence that routine antibiotic use on farms is already creating resistant strains that infect people. The FDA's decision allows the the industry to continue merrily defying science and public health in service of its dodgy business model.

Importantly, the agency did emphasize that the action "should not be interpreted as a sign that FDA no longer has safety concerns or that FDA will not consider re-proposing withdrawal proceedings in the future, if necessary."

That language could be a signal that the FDA is delaying real action until after the 2012 election, in an effort to keep meat-industry "dark money" from flowing to President Obama's opponent. In 2011, the Obama administration has acted repeatedly to appease agribussiness interests (e.g., here, here, and here), after showing at least some backbone initially.

Or the FDA's equivocations could be the death rattle of a failed three-decade effort to rein in a politically powerful and abusive industry.

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

The hands of a victim of Agent Orange, 12/27/11. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

By Mike Adams, NaturalNews

27 December 11

his is an exclusive breaking news story from NaturalNews, please cite this article as the source. It was received as a tip from a concerned health advocate who found it in the federal register, then forwarded it to an industry advocacy group which then forwarded it to us: Dow AgroScience, LLC, is petitioning the U.S. government to deregulate a genetically engineered variety of corn that is resistant to 2,4-D,, an extremely toxic pesticide that was 50% of the recipe to making Agent Orange (used in the Vietnam War as a weapon of mass destruction).

"We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has received a petition from Dow AgroScience LLC seeking a determination of nonregulated status of corn designated as DAS-40278-9, which has been genetically engineered for increased resistance to broadleaf herbicides in the phenoxy auxin group (such as the herbicide 2,4-D) and resistance to grass herbicides in the aryloxyphenoxypropionate acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase inhibitor group (such as quizalofop herbicides)."

Rats fed 2,4-D produced "fetuses with abdominal cavity bleeding and increased mortality," says the Cornell link above, which also states that 2,4-D may cause infertility, birth defects, organ toxicity and neurological effects.

Previously used as a weapon in the Vietnam War, 2,4-D may now be dropped en masse on U.S. crop fields.

What's most astonishing about this petition request is that if it is approved, the U.S. would then become an "agricultural war zone" where genetically engineered corn is "carpet bombed" with 2,4-D chemicals. Being resistant to such chemicals, the GE corn may then uptake those chemicals into its own structures and grain kernels, thereby creating corn laced with 2,4-D that would be unleashed when you eat your corn-based breakfast cereals or corn tortillas.

Corn is also one of the main feed sources for factory farmed cows, which are especially efficient at concentrating toxins into their fat tissues, to be unleashed when digested by humans.

If this petition is approved by the federal government - which has long conspired with GMO companies such as Dow, Dupont and Monsanto - it would result in the unleashing of tens of millions of gallons of toxic pesticide chemicals annually onto America's agricultural landscape (not to mention runoff into rivers, streams, lakes and oceans).

Urgent Action Item: Comment on This Dow Petition

The U.S. government claims to be accepting public comments on this petition request. We have no way of knowing whether all such comments are merely chucked into the "round file" or whether they are actually considered, but if you want to submit comments about this petition, YOU CAN'T do it online anyway!

Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2010-0103 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.

Share this NaturalNews story! Let people know that America's corn fields are about to be treated with the same chemical weapons our nation once dropped on Vietnam.

What Else You Can Do

Get involved with the Cornucopia Institute. They are working every day to fight exactly this kind of thing (and to protect America's farmers). Join their email list and please consider making a year-end donation to them, as they're doing fantastic work: http://www.Cornucopia.org